Latest news with #spendingcuts
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Majority of Utahns support spending cuts, say DOGE has been effective
WASHINGTON — A vast majority of Utah voters say they support cutting the size of the government as Congress works to approve spending cuts implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Nearly 80% of Utahns say they support downsizing the government, according to a new poll conducted by HarrisX for the Deseret News. That sentiment was largely shared among those who identify themselves as Republican, with 91% saying they support compared to just 9% who said they oppose. Democratic voters were more split among themselves, as 47% said they supported cutting the size of the government compared to 53% who said the opposite, according to the poll. Since President Donald Trump was sworn into office in January, the DOGE commission has identified spending cuts officials say would save the government billions of dollars. Congress has begun the process of approving those cuts, although lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats like — are torn on whether they agree with what's on the chopping block. A majority (60%) of Utahns say DOGE has been effective at identifying spending cuts compared to just 40% who said the opposite, the poll shows. That opinion is largely split along party lines, as 80% of Republicans said DOGE was effective, with only 29% of Democrats saying the same. On the other hand, 71% of Democrats said DOGE was ineffective compared to just 20% of Republicans who agreed with that sentiment. But when it comes to DOGE cuts and slashed funding, Utah voters say they feel mostly unaffected. A majority of Utahns (67%) say they don't know anyone who has lost their job because of the DOGE cuts, according to the poll. About 12% say a close friend has lost their job, 8% say a family member and another 17% say an acquaintance lost their job due to the DOGE cuts. Roughly 4% report their job was terminated because of DOGE cuts, the poll shows. The poll was conducted between May 16-21 among 805 registered voters in Utah. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Proposed spending cuts are already making their way through Congress, with the House approving a $9.4 billion rescissions package on Thursday targeting foreign aid as well as federal funding for organizations the Trump administration has accused of being anti-conservative. The package was opposed by all Democrats, and a handful of Republicans also opposed the package. However, it underscores a desire among Trump allies to codify the cuts identified by DOGE as 'waste, fraud, and abuse' as quickly as possible. The recent sentiments also come in contrast to Deseret News polling last month that showed Utah voters believe the federal government should spend more money in several different areas, with foreign funding a strong exception.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate GOP's plan to push food aid costs onto states axed from megabill
Senate Republicans' plan to force states to share the cost of the country's largest nutrition program to pay for their policy megabill has been halted by the chamber's rules. The Senate parliamentarian determined that the cost-sharing plan would violate the so-called Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in the reconciliation process, and would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, according to an advisory sent out Friday night by Senate Budget Committee Democrats. That means Republicans will need to head back to the drawing board after months of heated debate about how to slash spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The advisory comes after Senate Agriculture Committee staff met with Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Thursday to discuss their piece of the reconciliation bill text. The cost-sharing plan, which was first put forward by House Republicans, sparked backlash from state officials and concerns within the caucus. The bill would make states pay for SNAP benefits for the first time using a sliding scale based on their payment error rates. The Senate Agriculture Committee introduced a scaled-back version of the House GOP's cost-sharing plan earlier this month. Without it, Senate Republicans will struggle to find enough cuts to pay for their policy priorities and the $67 billion farm bill package they included — all with an ambitious timeline of delivering the megabill to President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Although the committee's bill hadn't received a final cost saving estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, committee staff predicted it would save around $211 billion in agriculture spending, with the cost-share plan making up a large portion of those trims. MacDonough also struck measures that would remove SNAP eligibility for immigrants who are not lawful permanent residents and extend a farm bill provision that allows federal officials to update farm payment programs.
Fox News
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
How Johnson pulled off another impossible win with just 1-vote margin on $9.4B spending cut bill
It came down to one vote last Thursday afternoon. Again. That's often the case in the House of Representatives. The GOP sports a modest eight-vote margin in the House. 220-212 with three vacancies. Republicans can only lose three votes and still pass a bill without Democratic assistance. And when the House closed the roll call, lawmakers voted 214-212 to strip USAID and public broadcasting of $9.4 billion. This was the first "rescissions" bill by the House. An effort to claw back money which lawmakers just green-lit in March. But flip one vote, and the measure would have collapsed. A 213-213 vote doesn't get it. By rule, ties fail in the House. The bill represented the first chance for the GOP to make good on proposed cuts from DOGE. From a constitutional standpoint, DOGE can only recommend cuts. Congress has authority over spending. That means lawmakers must vote on every dollar. Lawmakers appropriated the money, but they must also vote to take it back. No vote, no cuts. It's that simple. Earlier in the day on Thursday, it was unclear whether congressional Republicans had the votes to approve the spending cancellation package. It's known as a "rescissions" bill because it "rescinds" money already approved by Congress. But the stakes for this bill were hard to understate for the GOP. Republicans crow a lot about cutting spending and reducing the deficit. But unless you can actually pass a bill to cut spending, talk is cheap. And government programs are expensive. All of official Washington would have trained its attention on the House floor late Thursday afternoon to see how Republicans fared with the spending cancellation request. But the shocking video of the feds tangling with Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and handcuffing him quickly consumed every cubic centimeter of news oxygen. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and California Democrats planned to march to the office of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. A cavalcade of angry Democratic senators seized the Senate floor, excoriating the Trump Administration's tactics and demanding action from Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. A wild scene erupted in the House Oversight Committee. Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., demanded that Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., commit to subpoenaing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after the Padilla fracas. "Will you just shut up!" implored Comer of Frost. "Just shut up! Shut up!" "You're not going to tell me to shut up!" bellowed Frost. "He's been arrested as a former Antifa member," piled on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. You see why it was hard for the press corps to concentrate on the rescissions vote. But back to the House floor. The bill was heading to defeat midway through the roll call. Six Republicans posted nay votes on the board. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y. was among them. She told reporters her constituents supported public broadcasting. And she didn't like the mechanics of the administration sending a request to Congress to rub out spending. "I think this does give too much discretion to the White House to make cuts when we are the House that has the power of the purse," said Malliotakis. "And I've seen some of the cuts, as I've said in the past, the World Trade Center Health program, the Women's Health program. These are things that we had to go fight and get restored." But there were huddles on the floor during the vote itself. Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., chatted with Johnson and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn. A few moments later, LaLota and Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who was a no, switched their ballots to yes. Republicans gaveled the vote closed at 214-212. "I ultimately voted yes after a conversation or two with the Speaker and the Whip raised my confidence level," said LaLota. "I trust those two individuals. We've dealt with each other for the last couple of years. We've gotten on the same page." Bacon had spoken glowingly in recent days about his relationship with public broadcasters in Nebraska. He also had reservations about cutting PEPFAR, the global AIDS mitigation effort. But now Bacon didn't fry his party. "I was assured that PBS would receive funding in this year's budget. And I discussed PEPFAR with the speaker," said the Nebraska Republican. A few moments later, Johnson was outside the House chamber, bragging about his colleagues for passing the bill. "We are fulfilling the promises we made to the American people," said Johnson. "Today's passage of this initial rescissions package marks a critical step towards a more responsible and transparent government that puts the interests of the American taxpayers first." Failing to pass this teardrop of spending reductions amid a deep federal sea would have been catastrophic for the GOP. Again, especially because of all the braggadocio about cutting spending. Now Republicans can focus on bigger and more controversial spending cut requests from the Trump administration. But few reporters cared much about what Johnson had to say at that moment because of the immediate mania involving Padilla. The Capitol descended into chaos. The outcome of the critical vote was relegated to a footnote on a wild news day. By nightfall, no one was talking about the rescissions package at all. Let alone Padilla. Despite the staggering news traffic, the vote notched yet another narrow victory for Johnson and House Republicans. Like it or not, Johnson has piloted the fractious House Republican Conference to a series of slim victories on tough bills all year long. In February, the House narrowly approved its initial framework for the Big, Beautiful Bill. The outline was essential to help ease eventual passage in the Senate. At one point, it looked like Republicans lacked the votes. In fact, House leaders began sending Members home for the night. Then, they suddenly reversed themselves. Johnson and the GOP eked out a 217-215 victory, approving the framework and sending it to the Senate. Switch one vote, and the gig was up. The House and Senate would not be on the same page with a budget framework for the touchstone of President Trump's agenda. That would neutralize the entire exercise. A few weeks later, the House approved an interim spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, 217-213. Again a narrow vote. Only Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted nay. Flip two votes and the tally is 215-215. Again, a tie vote kills the bill. The Senate okayed one framework for the Big, Beautiful Bill in February. Another one in the spring. But the House and Senate still weren't on the same page. In mid-April, the House and Senate finally aligned. The House adopted the Senate's final blueprint for the Big, Beautiful Bill, 216-214. Massie and Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., voted nay. Again, change one vote and it's a tie. Defeat would have stalled the process for the Big, Beautiful Bill. Finally, Johnson and the GOP scored perhaps their biggest win of the year in mid-May. The House voted 215-214 with one member voting "present" to pass the initial version of the Big, Beautiful Bill and send it to the Senate. Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., had problems with the bill. But missed the vote because he fell asleep as the House debated the measure in the middle of the night. House Freedom Caucus Chairman and Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., also had reservations. But he cast the "present" vote. Either of these members could have tanked the legislation had they voted nay. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was the master at lugging challenging votes across the finish line by a vote or two. She's the reason Obamacare passed. But Pelosi often had larger majorities. Her secret sauce was understanding what members needed to vote yes on controversial legislation. The speaker has Trump on his side and a GOP conference that is willing to do practically whatever he wants. That helps a lot. But Johnson's resume of pushing through tough bills by the tiniest of margins is beginning to mirror Pelosi's success. However, the level of difficulty is higher for Johnson thanks to the minuscule majority. Pelosi was a parliamentary maestro when she was Speaker. And so far during his speakership, Johnson has defied political gravity. But whether you like Johnson's politics or not, keen political observers are noticing that he has a knack for pulling off the seemingly unachievable. That was long the calling card of Pelosi. And it may eventually prove to be the calling card of Johnson, too.
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Majority of Utahns support spending cuts, say DOGE has been effective
WASHINGTON — A vast majority of Utah voters say they support cutting the size of the government as Congress works to approve spending cuts implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Nearly 80% of Utahns say they support downsizing the government, according to a new poll conducted by HarrisX for the Deseret News. That sentiment was largely shared among those who identify themselves as Republican, with 91% saying they support compared to just 9% who said they oppose. Democratic voters were more split among themselves, as 47% said they supported cutting the size of the government compared to 53% who said the opposite, according to the poll. Since President Donald Trump was sworn into office in January, the DOGE commission has identified spending cuts officials say would save the government billions of dollars. Congress has begun the process of approving those cuts, although lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats like — are torn on whether they agree with what's on the chopping block. A majority (60%) of Utahns say DOGE has been effective at identifying spending cuts compared to just 40% who said the opposite, the poll shows. That opinion is largely split along party lines, as 80% of Republicans said DOGE was effective, with only 29% of Democrats saying the same. On the other hand, 71% of Democrats said DOGE was ineffective compared to just 20% of Republicans who agreed with that sentiment. But when it comes to DOGE cuts and slashed funding, Utah voters say they feel mostly unaffected. A majority of Utahns (67%) say they don't know anyone who has lost their job because of the DOGE cuts, according to the poll. About 12% say a close friend has lost their job, 8% say a family member and another 17% say an acquaintance lost their job due to the DOGE cuts. Roughly 4% report their job was terminated because of DOGE cuts, the poll shows. The poll was conducted between May 16-21 among 805 registered voters in Utah. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Proposed spending cuts are already making their way through Congress, with the House approving a $9.4 billion rescissions package on Thursday targeting foreign aid as well as federal funding for organizations the Trump administration has accused of being anti-conservative. The package was opposed by all Democrats, and a handful of Republicans also opposed the package. However, it underscores a desire among Trump allies to codify the cuts identified by DOGE as 'waste, fraud, and abuse' as quickly as possible. The recent sentiments also come in contrast to Deseret News polling last month that showed Utah voters believe the federal government should spend more money in several different areas, with foreign funding a strong exception.
CBS News
15-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey discuss President Trump's "big beautiful bill", proposed tax and spending cuts
As the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate considers making changes to President Trump's "big, beautiful bill", Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas vowed, "We're going to get this done. We will get the one big, beautiful bill passed, and the reason we're going to is because we have to." Cruz made his comments to CBS News Texas Thursday during an interview for Eye On Politics. When asked what changes he would like to see made to the version of the bill passed by the U.S. House last month, Cruz said, "I'd like to see us cut more spending. I'll tell you one idea that I've been urging my colleagues to do, and an idea I urged the President in the Oval Office last week to do is to end the Federal Reserve's practice of paying interest rates on bank reserves. For most of the history of the Fed from 1913 until 2008, the Fed did not pay interest on reserves. Then it started paying interest on reserves fairly recently in 2008." A report by the Federal Reserve at the time said, "This policy gave banks an incentive to hold onto their reserves rather than lending them out, thus mitigating the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its expanded lending with reductions in other assets." But Cruz said it's too costly to taxpayers. "In the last couple of years of the Biden administration, that expenditure skyrocketed, and it's spending now over $150 billion. That is your and my taxpayer money that is going straight to big banks. Ending that practice, that one change alone, would save $1.1 trillion over the next ten years." Cruz said the U.S. could save another $2 trillion over a decade by cutting more federal spending. "For example, removing illegal aliens from federal government welfare benefits that saves hundreds of billions of dollars. Another is expanding work requirements to receive federal benefits. I think work requirements are incredibly helpful and beneficial for young, healthy people." He also said the Senate's version of the bill will include his legislation for no tax on tips, a federal tax credit that provides incentives for school choice programs, and a what's called Invest America, which provides $1,000 to newborn children that can be invested for them. Parents, family members, and employers can also give up to $5,000 a year in a tax advantage account. "By the time he or she turns 18, they'll have $170,000 in that account, and if they keep contributing $5,000 a year, by the time that child turns 35, he or she will have $700,000 in that account." House and Senate Republicans favor extending and making permanent the income tax cuts approved in 2017 during President Trump's first term. When asked about the Congressional Budget Office's projections that the "big, beautiful bill will add $2.4 trillion to the debt if passed as is, Cruz rejected it. "Historically, CBO has been wrong in its scoring. Over and over and over again, they underestimate the economic growth from tax cuts. But what I'll say secondly, is I agree. We need to cut more spending." All Democrats in the U.S. House, including Representative Marc Veasey of Fort Worth, voted against the "big, beautiful bill." When asked what he favors, Veasey told CBS News Texas, "I probably would include a much smaller tax cut. I certainly believe that when we have an opportunity to cut taxes that we should. I'm not one of these people that think that we ought to be sending out extra punishment just because someone's been successful. That's not what I'm all about. I think that entrepreneurism and people that are wealthy in this country have created a lot of jobs. I just think that people need to pay their fair share. Kicking people off of health care services so Elon (Musk) can have a tax break is not what I'm all about." The national debt has grown to nearly $37 trillion and asked whether spending cuts are necessary, Veasey said, "Spending absolutely has to be cut, but it needs to be done responsibly." The CBO also projected that under the bill passed by House Republicans last month, 7.8 million people will lose their medicaid coverage by 2034. Veasey said, "I'm not surprised. It's going to be detrimental, particularly to a state like Texas, where you hae such a high percentge of residents that really do rely on medicaid services. You're going to see mortality rates rise and you're going to see a lot of people that voted for Trump, they are literally going to see their health care coverage ripped right from up under them." Republicans in the House and Senate have said the spending on Medicaid has grown unsustainably, and that they want to preserve it for the people who it was originally designed for: pregnant women, the poor, and the disabled. Republicans favor strict work requirements. But Veasey discounted that. "There are a lot of nuances in that, that I don't think the Republicans are explaining to people on purpose. Someone that's pregnant would need to verify, probably more than once during the pregnancy that they're actually pregnant. That's the sort of thing that is going to end up through attrition kicking people off the rolls. What it's going to do is exacerbate poor health care outcomes because people won't go to the doctor anymore because they won't have a practitioner. They'll go and get all of their needs through the emergency room." Senate Republicans hope to pass the "big, beautiful bill" by July 4th. It will then go back to the House for consideration.
